Some results on average-case hardness within the polynomial hierarchy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We prove several results about the average-case complexity of problems in the Polynomial Hierarchy (PH). We give a connection among average-case, worst-case, and non-uniform complexity of optimization problems. Specifically, we show that if P NP is hard in the worst-case then it is either hard on the average (in the sense of Levin) or it is non-uniformly hard (i.e. it does not have small circuits). Recently, Gutfreund, Shaltiel and Ta-Shma (IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity, 2005) showed an interesting worst-case to averagecase connection for languages in NP, under a notion of average-case hardness defined using uniform adversaries. We show that extending their connection to hardness against quasi-polynomial time would imply that NEXP doesn’t have polynomial-size circuits. Finally we prove an unconditional average-case hardness result. We show that for each k, there is an explicit language in P Σ2 which is hard on average for circuits of size n k. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".